argument
stringlengths 201
3.55k
| stance
stringclasses 2
values | id
stringlengths 36
39
|
|---|---|---|
Gay's shouldnt be discriminated against and should have there fundemental rights to marrige. Homophobic ideals are wrong. All are equal. Our motto support this "Out of many One" and again I must point out how far we have come as a country and how over time our views have become closer to equality. First the Black civil rights, then women's rights. We accepted them as they are also human equals. Now there is Gay Rights and we are so close to equality. We must allow homosexuals to be equal as they are. Additionally the bible does not oppose homosexuality it supports it. Here is evidence from a credible source: http://www.religioustolerance.org... My opponent also failed to respond to my arguments. Also what Is his Topicality? Homophobic ideals and laws along with other discriminatory ones are not topical. All of this covered I would like to conclude why you should vote for Pro and Support Gays getting there rights to marry and that homophobics dicriminating against them should not be tolerated. There is nothing wrong with homosexuality and Con has failed to debate me | PRO | f536bd65-2019-04-18T14:03:16Z-00001-000 |
Anime Inspires. My opponent fails to understand the topic he is arguing for. His resolution states that "EVERYONE IS INSPIRED BY ANIME" not "Every one has the potential to be inspired" Of course there's a potential for everyone to be inspired but the debate is irelevant to that. You argued that everyone is. not every could be. Therefor all my original points still stand. Furthermore, there are 7billion people. it is impossible for everyone to have seen anime otherwise it would be the biggest television networking availabe. Furthermore i will be adding on to the list of people who are not inspired by anime-Children between the ages of 1-4 who are unable to understand inspiration. -Severely mentally retarded people.-Tribes in Papa New Guinea, Africa, South america who have no ties to modern civilization.Of course everyone has the potential to see anime, however my opponent has argued that everyone is inspired by it. Which is completely untrue. | CON | 53ba39ec-2019-04-18T16:16:48Z-00001-000 |
What is God's intentions. The Bible begins saying: In the begining, God created the heavens and the earth. and he saw this was good. But why? Why was it good?? Why did God create the Earth, why did he create people. Imagine your God, why would you make the heavens and the Earth? For something to.. do? Is mankind entertaining? Is that why he made a world... and he watches us all from above? For something to do instead of floating meaninglessly in a mass of darkness? He gave us free will, and now he watches us all, seeing how we live, how we act. Must be much better than TOTAL DARKNESS. There is so much more pain in the world than good. Explain why God wouldnt help us... he watches us... he can hear us. Why doesnt he show himself? Imagine being in God's shoes. This world must be something really fun to watch... watching what we do, how we live, must be extraordinary. See this from my point of view? Now debate, what are your thoughts? Is God really good? If he is... why the hell did he make us?? | CON | 1165fef9-2019-04-18T19:19:19Z-00003-000 |
the evil within. What's the rules, April fools, skkkkrt skkk skkkkrt, i am the evil one, you are jus jealous, over zealous, you cannot defeat me, I be the power, everytime my hour. Ya mouth sour, why?.. cos you swallow, ya Face - hollow. Alls you do is follow. You no leader, I'm king, king of everything... You're welcome | CON | eb8cc154-2019-04-18T11:49:56Z-00001-000 |
The American Revolution was justified. Alright, your numbers do make more sense now. Still, out of the Thirteen Colonies, assuming the high number of 33% for the loyalist population, and accepting your number of only 1/3 of the population in open rebellion that would leave 1/3 undecided at the beginning of the War. Many of that undecided 1/3 made up their mind after word came home that redcoats were firing on colonists. At that point you needed to pick a side. As far as the Acadians in Canada they had only tenuous connections to the colonies. They were a relatively recent acquisition of the Crown and were ruled without any representation whatsoever. For the most part they were French and neutral. They had no business if Englishmen wanted to kill Englishmen. "Also when the revolution started heating up, London declared any slave that could make it to British controlled soil would be free." This was clearly a war measure. No other slaves would be freed in the Empire by order of the government until the 1830's. If you can cut the legs out from under your opponents economy during a war most nations take advantage of it. As for Lincoln, the Emancipation Proclamation is in large part celebrated because it committed to the Union to the abolition of slavery. This would lead to the 13th Amendment banning involuntary servitude in the United States. This is another debate for another time. I covered a lot more ground than taxes, didn't even really spend all that much time on them. The vice-admiralty courts, the Massachusetts Government Act, and the lack of colonial representation are much more important. Taxes were simply the root of the controversy because they were the means by which the British government attempted to assert control over the colonies. As far as the altruism of the British government was the not reason the Ohio was closed to settlement. The lack of funds in the Treasury to provide military defenses for the new colonists was. During the conquest of both the Indian Subcontinent and Britain's African colonies the British never sneezed at using military force to achive their goals. To assert that the Ohio River Valley would have remained closed to white occupation for very long is doubtful. There was certainly more at stake and behind the motivation for the American Revolution or any other. The circumstances are far more complex. I won't attempt to argue that American conduct during or after the Revolution was perfect, or even close to perfect. To assert that the Revolution was unjustified though, that is a sweeping claim to make. | PRO | 2dee8b34-2019-04-18T19:56:43Z-00001-000 |
That it is rightfully moral and just to kill one innocent person to save many innocent persons. Hello, I am a public forum debater that decided to take on a Lincoln Douglas topic. Remember that Lincoln Douglas is about morality and acceptance in society so don't count on little tubs of evidence to win. :) Accept if you want a good debate about morality. Best of luck and may the best debater win. Think about this scenario - a terrorist wants to bomb a building. He prepares the bomb puts it inside and makes a detonator which he is running with( because let's say you are a police man and you caught him. ) He tosses he detonator in the bushes and runs away. Suddenly a little boy walks up and starts playing with it trying to push the button. There are 200 people inside the building. Is it rightfully moral and just to shoot the little boy to save the 200 people? Yes, it is. Think about it if you're the policeman. Its a very difficult decision to make but you haven't got much time and there are 200 people inside that building. One life against 200. This is acceptable because we must think of the greater good. If you shoot the little boy you will be saving 200 lives. People with families. Yes, it would be tragedy for the family of this boy, but how much more of a tragedy if 200 others are dead. | PRO | 6caa2cbf-2019-04-18T19:26:43Z-00004-000 |
The Extraterrestrial Hypothesis for the UFO phenomenon should be taken seriously. Thanks to my opponent for offering an interesting topic, and I hope I can offer you a good debate.With respect to my opponent opening statements. I would gather that he will be trying to prove why we should take UFO sightings as serious science as some of these sightings come from "sufficiently qualified and credible witnesses". As such it is my opponents burden of proof to provide evidence for these sightings.In statement 1 you said the stakes are high. I think everyone would agree with that, but we need verifiable scientific evidence. It is necessary that this evidence is presented before science takes this seriously otherwise it falls outside of the scientific method.(1) If their is a phenomena and we attribute it to a UFO, then we need evidence of a UFO to make this claim valid.Further I would like to ask my opponent the following questions. In the second statement my opponent stated that it is logical to assume that if other intelligent beings exist "they have likely been here much longer than we have, and it would not be inconceivable that they have explored and/or colonized much of the galaxy." This is a statement that has no evidence, and as such I would like my opponent to present the evidence for this. I see no reason why it is logical to assume that if other intelligent life existed that they would be an older civilization than us.My opponent also stated that "Our electromagnetic emissions and atomic detonations would likely be quite detectable by any such civilization, and may spark their interest." Absolutely, and this is why the SETI project has been around since 1969 and has not come up with anything similar.(2,3) We are searching for alien life and we have not found it, so why would an alien race find our signals?I hand the debate back to my opponent.(1) http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu...(2) http://en.wikipedia.org...(3) http://setiathome.berkeley.edu... | CON | f9b5c79-2019-04-18T16:49:58Z-00008-000 |
Winter is better than Summer. I will define Winter and Summer as follows:Summer-- the period from the summer solstice (usually June 20 or 21 in the Northern Hemisphere) to the autumn equinox [1]. Winter-- The period from the Winter solstice to the next equinox [2]. I will be doing this from the Season schedule in the U. S. A. I add these facts because my opponent didn't these specifics are vital. Contention 1: Growing SeasonI will be conducting this debate with the utilitarian point of view. In otherwards I will be defending summer as more useful then winter or that summer causes more happiness then winter. This first contention will be in defense of Summer because it is the growing season in which we grow all the crops that we either sell or keep to ourselves to use [3]. However, Winter does not have any particular usefulness in this area since most pants die. Contention 2: Vacation. Summer is the the time when most schools let out for three months thus, the majority of students are made happiung by this, and summer becomes a season of joy and free time away from academics. Contention 3: Girls and clothing. This last contention will be from the stand point of guys or the male half of the human species becoming more happier in summer then anyother part of the year. This is due to the temperature increase in summer. The female half of our species become more hot and therefore, where less clothing and the change becomes attractive to the men and boys. This increase in happiness isin half the population of Earth means Summer is better then Winter since winter means women put on more clothing to stay warm. I will now await my opponent's response. Sources[1]. http://en.wikipedia.org...[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...[3]http://en.wikipedia.org... | CON | 99192dc7-2019-04-18T17:56:25Z-00003-000 |
PETA is bad. I would agree with you farm animals should be allowed to be kept, but I disagree with your later statements. PETA is an organization: a group of people. They themselves don't take care of animals, they just fight for animal rights. I don't know where the information you gathered about animals dying in PETA's care came from, considering they don't keep or rescue animals. Furthermore, for information you gather I would like to see a source since I have no way of knowing where you got your 'facts' from. | CON | f5b3323d-2019-04-18T15:10:20Z-00001-000 |
nothing is accurate... We have all heard of stories where people clame to have some kind of aproch with aliens. Although this stories might be true no one has yet provided any evidence to the public. Its understandable that the Governments does not want to make a big comotion about this mayor issue but there has been people that have made stories intentional to scare the public and to recieve some kind of reward, to see who gets to show the evidence first. We need some answers and we need them now!! | PRO | 8f9a96bf-2019-04-19T12:45:07Z-00037-000 |
Rap Battle: theLwerd goes down. I've got about an hour to write this -- Believing Pro's crap is so wack you know I didn't even want to ignite this flame cuz he's lame but I hope that he likes this; takes this and bites this for dropping my name then came and disrespected me. He thought he'd test me but didn't best me despite trying to be like me. Put up a picture of my dead dog to spite me and I didn't take it lightly. He wanted to fight me though he couldn't out write me -- He's chump change but the range of my Trump wage gives me sure wealth, so I'm gonna own this as you're about to see for yourself... =========================================================== You start this battle like you got BEEF with me but you're a little CHICKEN How you gonna f-ck me deep, you see, when you can't even get your d-ck in? Then come back with what seems like some bad teenage poetry I spit with mean rage and still give em wet dreams - you know it, G I'm lyrical flaunting? Well you're lyrically fronting My rhymes are daunting -- you c-nt, see you're clearly nothing But I got something; besting this Country like a do-see-do So I take my flow in and ride it like it's a friggin Rodeo What I'm spittin's beautifully written like Juliet and Romeo You're a fool, forget dutifully that you don't even know me though Then go stealing my avatar thinking that it would get you far But my rhymes get deeper than a worn scar and yours suck harder than a porn star A gay one - that's what you amount to - Only a f-g would bother us This is your fake account, dude - your real name's Protagoras Just look in the comments section - You're not keeping it Private but I'm a Lieutenant Your mom shoulda used condom protection or died the day she got pregnant You can't jack my swag - try harder - so why don't you go jack your father I got this in the bag so I'll take it further with words that hurt ya: verbal murder slaughter LV's for L' Victory - Even Louie Vuitton can't get it on like me (ask the pundits) See this battle's like the marathon with the way that I run this Someone call a doctor, mon, cuz you make me sick to my stomach I'm glad your account's gone -- Challenge me? You shouldn't have done it My rhymes are doper and so it's OVER MAN, Mr. Overman You're just a P-SSY (cat) but you know that I'm a Doberman That's a fact so that's a wrap with this rap and it is what it is You put up a picture of my dog cuz I made you my B-TCH. =========================================================== | CON | c7b47400-2019-04-18T19:13:24Z-00000-000 |
Atheist arguments are sound. Con asks for an example of a fallacious religious argument; here is one: The teleological argument. This is how it goes:1. The universe has physical constants which cause the conditions for the development of life.2. The range that those constants can be within and still support life is very small.3. The physical constants of the universe are therefore to precise to have been random chance.4. Therefore there must be an intelligent entity that designed the universe to support life.5. That entity is God.This has two fallacies in it; the first one is the assumption that because the conditions for life are improbable to occur naturally there MUST be an entity that designed and caused those conditions to occur. The second fallacy is the False Dilemma fallacy. The Teleological argument gives a false dilemma of either a highly improbable natural cause, or God as the cause (God commonly being defined as an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent entity) when there is also the possibility that it was an omnipotent entity that isn't omnibenevolent (not God.)Here are two atheistic argument against God: the omnipotence paradox and the argument from free will. The omnipotence paradox goes like this: can God create a rock so heavy he can't lift it. If God can create a rock so heavy he can't lift it he's not omnipotent; if he can't create a rock so heavy he can't lift it then he's not omnipotent; so either way he's not omnipotent. The argument from free will is another paradox which goes like this: God is omnipotent, so he can create a being with free will. God is also Omniscient, so he knows what choice that being with free will is going to make. If God knows what choice the being with free will is going to make; then the being doesn't have free will. If the being does have free will then God can't know what choice they will make. In the former scenario God can't make a being with free will because he will always know what choice they will make and therefore is not omnipotent. In the latter God can create a being with free will but doesn't know what choice that being will make, therefore he is not Omniscience. Therefore God can't exist as he must have qualities that are incompatible. | PRO | 88c15770-2019-04-18T16:51:14Z-00002-000 |
2nd amendment guarantees both militia and individual arms rights. Oral arguments in DC vs. Heller. Justice Scalia. March l8th, 2008 - "JUSTICE SCALIA: I don't see how there's any, any, any contradiction between reading the second clause as a -- as a personal guarantee and reading the first one as assuring the existence of a militia, not necessarily a State-managed militia because the militia that resisted the British was not State- managed. But why isn't it perfectly plausible, indeed reasonable, to assume that since the framers knew that the way militias were destroyed by tyrants in the past was not by passing a law against militias, but by taking away the people's weapons -- that was the way militias were destroyed. The two clauses go together beautifully: Since we need a militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." | PRO | 915f4c2b-2019-04-17T11:47:43Z-00064-000 |
People who go in debates with the user RoyLatham should get a 15-point head start. Verse 1 There once was a man named KingDebater, who sounded like a real Roy Hater! He presented a plan with great folly, which I shall refute with great jolly! He insisted opponents get a head start, instead of having them use their smarts! He denied the anger this would produce, insisting the anger would be countered, he deduced! Not realizing the counters could be countered, he failed. Or that the rules can be averted, despite jail! [1] Verse 2 Rhyme? He heard rhyme, I cannot deny. These are the rules that should apply! Losing every debate? That I contest. As he admitted, Roy is the best! He talks about a debate where Roy can’t rhyme . . . presuming Roy would accept and waste his time! This plan of mine . . . need not be absolute. Just two of five debates are a hoot! [2] Blues Clues is awesome, to deny that is insane! This statement itself . . . no need to explain! He complains about “stacked odds” . . . rather bizarre . . . is that not the point of the argument he’s pushed so far? To make Roy lose, so he said . . . in his round one, were we mislead? King contradicts himself, very sad . . . this might make voters very mad! To debate against rhyme, no win guarenteed. This debate is proof . . . yes indeed. ;) Verse 3 He attacks my grammar, quite unsporting, while his is in need of tremendous sorting! Than and that? They are two different words.[2] To confuse the two is quite absurb! "Clues" should be capitalized, since it is proper.[3] Those who say otherwise are grammatical paupers! Verse 4 Great justice demands that you vote CON . . . now excuse me while I go play in the lawn! Thanks for the debate! Logical-Master! Sources: [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] See CON R1. [2] "The word "concede" has 88 pure rhymes [1], whilst the word "accept" has only 15 pure rhymes [2] which means that when trying to make his arguments all snappy and clever, he's more likely to say he concedes that say he accepts the debate! " [3] Uh oh, I lose! Now, I am off to watch Blue's clues! | CON | 78aaa004-2019-04-18T16:52:27Z-00000-000 |
Social Darwinism is a just theory. Hi Sketchy and thanks for the opportunity to debate. I'm cool with all your rules and definitions and promise to keep Adolf wotsit out of the debate. I would just like to point out that to discuss morality, some sort of moral framework should probably be established first. Guessing you're not a nihilist or monotheistic objectivist but would like to know how you intend to guage morality. If you just want to work off a general consensus of moral subjectivity, that's cool, just let me know. I eagerly await your opening arguments. Thanks. | CON | ca68fbd4-2019-04-18T18:39:50Z-00005-000 |
Teemo is Satan. As Con, I will be arguing that Teemo is NOT Satan. Since my opponent did not post any definitions, arguments or proofs, I will post mine.Definitions:Satan - the Devil; Lucifer.Teemo - League of Legends champion; The Swift Scout. Primary: Marksman, Secondary: Assassin.My arguments: This is Teemo. So f*cking cute.............................................. This is Satan, So f*cking scary.They do not look alike. I will need more explanation form Pro regarding how Teemo's skill set and laugh have anything in common with Satan.Sources:http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...http://leagueoflegends.wikia.com... | CON | baafd0b7-2019-04-18T16:42:32Z-00001-000 |
the "right to be forgotten" on Internet searchers ought to be a. My opponent made the statement of saying the breach of privacy should be illegal. I am here to say that not all forms of intrusion are necessarily crude. We have many criminals running on the streets. They are outsmarting the government on a daily basis. We use surveillance to deter crimes and catch terrorists. The drones, for example, are one of the things that we use to help monitor our enemy. If we were to take down the images of Nikki Castouras this wouldn't mean it will be permanently deleted. There may be the chance of someone getting ahold of this image and reposting it for the world to see once more. Moreover, the architecture of information systems has become much more complex, with the numerous links rendering any deletion of data tricky and expensive. With the information being posted again you will need to do the cleaning job again. I have never claimed that we have the right to look at the dead daughter of this family. That is irrelevant to what this debate is even arguing about. That is why I am choosing to overlook this question of his. For it will distract us from the truly important issues in the debate. This take power away from the freedom of expression because someone may have his/her website or comment flagged and tucked away from the public eye. If the opinion were to be silenced, the opinion may have been true. All beliefs are not certain or infallible. If the opinion, even if untrue, helps solidify truth of present belief. Our beliefs currently even if proved true must be discussed. Not just taken down without our knowledge. On an article called "Wikipedia Swears to Fight 'Censorship' of 'Right to be Forgotten' Ruling" dated on August 6th, 2014. Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales said " History is a human right and one of the worst things that a person can do is attempt to use force to silence another," he said. "I've been in the public eye for quite some time. Some people say good things, some people say bad things ... That's history, and I would never use any kind of legal process like to try to suppress it." | CON | 1331ab18-2019-04-18T15:37:24Z-00003-000 |
Short Story Debate. **Spoiler Alert**The zombies kill everyone. My opponent was planning on working a "Twilight vs Magic Mike" storyline into her next round, but my creative zombie spin (which has NEVER been done before) screwed up her plans for an epic teen romance novel.Vote Optimus Prime / Steve Jobs 2016.(Paid for by the Prime Jobs campaign for President.) | CON | 9cefb5e4-2019-04-18T18:02:27Z-00001-000 |
That Age of Empires is superior to Empire Earth. I'm going to be arguing that the latest version of Empire Earth is inferior to the latest version of Age of Empires. 1: Age of Empires generally is more loved by the critics. Age of Empires 3 got a Metacritic score of 81, compared to Empire Earth 3's score of a mere 49. 2: Age of Empires is more complex and thus more engaging. Age of Empires 3 has 3 resources, whilst Empire Earth has only 2. Age of Empires 3 has 5 ages, whilst Empire Earth has only 3. 3: The AI (artificial intelligence) in Age of Empires 3 is far superior. I've never lost a game of Empire Earth 3, but the Age Empires 3 AI surprises me frequently. 4: Graphically, Age of Empires 3 is again superior. While Empire Earth lags and achieves only cartoonish graphics, Age of Empires 3 has a realistic physics model, complex shaders, hundreds of units and one of the most immersive worlds I've ever seen - and I used to run it off a 32MB graphics card! (not at stunning speeds, but it was playable) 5: Age of Empires 3 has more expansions than Empire Earth 3 (2 against 0), so after you get bored of the games you can only pick up an expansion for Age of Empires. 6: Age of Empires 3 has an award winning soundtrack. Empire Earth 3 barely has a soundtrack at all. Steven Rippy is a legend! 7: Age of Empires 3 is focused on one area of the world in one time period with some vague interaction with the rest of the world (home city). This is more realistic than the Empire Earth model, where you command a large portion of the planet at any one time - after all, no ancient commander had as much power as Empire Earth would suggest, however, several American pioneers did found cities and defend them against a rival faction's city in early America. SOURCES: . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://en.wikipedia.org... my experience | PRO | e33b1a82-2019-04-18T19:02:37Z-00004-000 |
Resolved: a just government ought to ensure food security for all its citizens. Firstly, my opponent began his argument with a question which I deem to be totally irrelevant. The resolution at debate assumes that there is such thing as a "just government" and that is taken as a given before debate even commences. Were the debate rather on the proper role of government, we could debate that fundamental principle. But as strong academic debate is impossible if certain things can not be assumed as true for the sake of an argument, I feel that all arguments made under that umbrella heading of "Is a government's role to be moral at all?" ought to be dismissed as irrelevant to the present debate. As to the point in which my opponent states, "that it is not the job or the right of the government to uphold morality and quite frankly it is impossible, allowing the government this power violates its 1 function which is simply to protect its people and thus this resolution undermine the entire premise of government, a concept which the founders would also agree." I would like to provide a statement from John Adams, the father of the Constitution, which totally defeats the argument: "We ought to consider what is the end of government, before we determine which is the best form. Upon this point all speculative politicians will agree, that the happiness of society is the end of government, as all divines and moralphilosophers will agree that the happiness of the individual is the end of man. From this principle it will follow, that the form of government which communicates ease, comfort, security, or, in one word, happiness, to the greatest number of persons, and in the greatest degree, is the best."(John Adams, Thoughts on Government, emphasis added)Indeed, the very father of the Constitution does not agree with my opponent. The statement claiming that the founders agree with him, is totally false. The final point which my opponent makes seems more well founded on the surface, but below the skin there is a much more illogical argument. My opponent seems to believe that one possible result of such a policy is enough to discount the immediate benefits thereof. If I am understanding correctly, my opponent seems to believe that the millions of people who are impoverished should starve to death, that a government should not protect the lives of the people they have the responsibility to protect, and that a chance reality based on no solid evidence. Indeed, I believe that it is foolish to throw away the lives of so many people simply out of fear of a chance future. As none of the arguments my opponent made have any substantial ground, I solicit the votes of the judges. Thank you for your time well spent. | PRO | 9b8e4d85-2019-04-18T15:13:40Z-00002-000 |
Are Catholics Christians. Now ladies and gentlemen Id like to draw your attention to what my opponent mentioned in his argument:he mentioned that what catholic christians and protestant christians do are 90% similar. But ladies and gentlemen am I not right to say that even the slighest difference is still considered a difference? It could be saying that a man called John and a man called Arthur are twins, they look alike. Very similar to each other right? But there is a difference. Their identities. My point being ladies and gentlemen,the slightest difference is still considered a difference. So coming back to the topic:If you are wanting to say that catholics are christians there should not be the slightest difference at all. Yes some or most or all of you may look at the majority but there is still a difference. I for one won"t be arguing about this if there were no differences between us and how we worship god. But there are so many differences between us. Yes we worship the same god,but Id like to draw your attention to the priests. A little bit about the history of the bible first:When jesus ordained the disciples and what he did in this process was that he consecrated their hands so there will be a "line" connected between them and jesus. Till today this "line" is still passed down to various catholic priests across the world. But the christians however they formed their own "religion" and started to form their own group of priests which today are called pastors. But they do not have the "line" connected to jesus hence the difference over here. In conclusion for this argument,I just want to say that yes catholics and christians are very similar to each other but the slightest difference still tells us apart. | CON | e5d26946-2019-04-18T11:41:58Z-00004-000 |
Mother Teresa was not so saint-like. I have tried to debate this several times but I have had difficulty as a result of opponents forfeiting rounds, so I am looking for a good and thorough debate. Anyway: It's an Interesting topic as you don't hear it that often. I will be for the notion that mother Teresa was in fact quite immoral and unjust in her actions and ideas and therefore doesn't deserve the title of "saint". Round one is an acceptance round only, followed by rounds of back and forth argument/rebuttal. Good luck and happy debating. | PRO | 11c7c633-2019-04-18T17:09:24Z-00005-000 |
Muhammad, the final prophet of Islam, was a civilized, peaceful man. I. So he preached marriage to 4 wives but then justified it for his sake to "create allies"? Seems a little fishy to me. Why couldn't other people "create allies" then? I'm not approving of polygamy, but it seems that if he were to preach something, he should go by it himself. II. I just came across this in my research and I will site these. Muslims should consider this book still to be reliable, since it is a holy book. However, to clear up any speculation, I will quote the Hadith directly. Here, he says women are inferior to men. The description says "Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri": "The Prophet said, 'Isn't the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?' The women said, 'Yes.' He said, 'This is because of the deficiency of a woman's mind.'" (Hadith 3:826) The next source is here: http://www.sacred-texts.com... "The Prophet replied, 'I saw Paradise and stretched my hands towards a bunch (of its fruits) and had I taken it, you would have eaten from it as long as the world remains. I also saw the Hell-fire and I had never seen such a horrible sight. I saw that most of the inhabitants were women.'" (Hadith 2:161) Your quote does not prove that he loves women at all. Also, let it be noted that Mary (Mother of Jesus) is the only woman named in the Qur'an. III. Wikipedia's reliability is known to be shaky, so I found another source from about.com on the battle. If you read the article here ( http://asianhistory.about.com... ) it says that they had going back and forth for a while. The city of Mecca kicked out Muslims, and the Muslims retaliated. It says nowhere that the Muslims tried to retreive their "stolen goods", nor does it say that Muhammad was against the fighting. What is does say is that the Muslims tried to raid the caravan, then Mohammad marched his army. After the battle, Muhammad ordered that the held the wealthy be for ransom. That doesn't sound very peaceful to me. IV. This is another widely debated issue. I can't find any legitimate source saying that he "preached the freeing of slaves to everyone". The fact of the matter is, he owned and traded African slaves. Take a look at this article as well: http://asianhistory.about.com... The myth that he allegedly "bought the freedom of slaves" (not that you said this, but I saw this online) is false. Many times he traded slaves for more slaves. Whether not he believed in slave rights, he still encouraged slavery through his actions. Thank you for the response, and good luck in the final round. Final note: could you please include sources? Thank you. | CON | c52e9064-2019-04-18T18:13:59Z-00002-000 |
i think, therefore, i am. It is flawed for different reasons. Firstly, it is incorrect to assume your existence is real purely because you are capable of thought. Why can't the thoughts be those of another entity, you could still be illusory and just receiving those thoughts, perhaps as a figment. An example would be when you are dreaming, at times you may be thinking as yourself even though you aren't yourself in the dream. The dream person is in no way real yet they still have thought. It does not make them real and therefore thought cannot make you any more real. Secondly, "I think, therefore I am" does not prove that thought is real, only that a thought means you are real. If the thought you are perceiving is not real then how could it possibly prove your existence. Therefore, the primary flaw in the statement is that if the thought is never proven to be anything more than illusory, how could it possibly prove the existence of self. | CON | d0853961-2019-04-18T16:05:34Z-00003-000 |
The international community and political legitimacy. While international support is important to some extent for the government, Myanmar has significant political and economic relations with many countries in the region, including China and North Korea, whose stance is strategically motivated and is not going to be influenced by what the US and the EU do. It is hard to fathom a situation in the foreseeable future where the military and government leadership will be forced to bow down to international pressure, whether or not certain countries choose to engage with it. The only way for the international community to remain relevant to Myanmar would be by engaging with it. The situation is different from that in South Africa and in Haiti because of the existence of strong allies, whose interests are different, if not opposed to in some respects, from those who follow a policy of disengagement with Myanmar. | CON | 13f44483-2019-04-15T20:22:29Z-00021-000 |
Private Handgun ownerships should be outlawed. Thanks, Pro. Pro asserts, to quote him: "handguns like a barreta or M9 for example should be outlawed for private ownership uses due to the vast majority of the united states gun ownership is common and there is a high percentage of people misusing it or involved in a death or injury accident or incident." Am I to take it that only Beretta handguns (M9 handguns are manufactured by Beretta) (1) should be banned from private hands, according to my opponent? If so, then surely Pro has already negated the statement in the title through his own argument. If Pro is not proposing a ban of just Beretta handguns, but handguns of other make besides Beretta, then which ones are "like" Beretta handguns? Perhaps more specification is needed. If my opponent is not making such a claim that only Beretta handguns should be banned from private ownership, and rather that all handguns should be banned from private ownership, well, why should that be so? Based on my interpretation of my opponent's argument, Pro has not yet given any evidence against private handgun ownership. Pro seems only to have thanked me for pointing out the need for specification, and indicated that he agrees he must present statistics that pertain solely to handguns. He has not seemed to actually make an argument against private handgun ownership. As no argument against handgun ownership has been given, I do not need to address an argument against private handgun ownership. Sources: 1. http://www.beretta.com... | CON | bddd7136-2019-04-18T15:16:31Z-00001-000 |
Evolution is a valid cosmology for Christians. -First of all, evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. . https://en.wikipedia.org... -It does not examine the origins of life on earth, that topic relates to the theory of abiogenesis or panspermia. (or in your case through god) -This debate will deal solely with the theory of evolution and its processes compared or contrasted with the Biblical account in genesis, NOT with the initial creation of the universe. -I will lay out my arguments in the next round and look forward to hearing yours, thank you for the opportunity to debate this topic of vital importance. | CON | 3a54f61-2019-04-18T16:58:55Z-00004-000 |
Ron Paul's Foreign Policy. I do have problems with some of Ron Paul's foreign policy such as how far he takes his non interventionism personally and how far he takes blowback as the main explanation of why the US and other Western countries like the UK are attacked. I do agree that we need to scale back our Empire because of its huge cost. I am generally against nation building as well as some of the wars we have been involved in. If that is not con enough let me know. My main arguments will be against pure non interventionism and blowback as the primary cause of terrorism in the US and other countries as well as some pro points about the war in Afghanistan and POSSIBLE benefits of naval as well as airforce use against Iran IF they really are developing nuclear weapons. | CON | 5f011b75-2019-04-18T18:29:35Z-00007-000 |
The term "Master debater" is funny. To open my argument, I will bring up two points. Point 1: The term "Master Debater" is a play on words because it sounds like masterbater. Plays on words are a highly used comedic element, and is often the punch line of jokes. Point 2: Masturbation is a natural part of human life, and therefore, it is funny. Other natural parts of human life are the following; Sex, sexual orientation, race, bowl movements, anger, and fear. Jokes about these, no matter how much of a guilty pleasure they are, are funny. Conclusion: Combining the comedic element of a play on words with a common thing that most humans share makes the term "Master debater" funny. | PRO | 5d3f7e7-2019-04-18T19:14:43Z-00002-000 |
Being a Christian does not negate being in support of the Death Penalty. I'm a Christian and I've always been taught that "you reap what you sow." There is a, distinct, but fine-line between killing someone and murdering someone. The death penalty is not murder. Murder is taking someones life just for the sake of taking a life. The death penalty is for those who commit such horrific crimes that we must not only put an end to their life but also make an example of them in the process. Sometimes the only way that justice can be served is by taking the life of the one that took a very fragile and innocent life away from this earth. The Bible certainly teaches that death is a justified way of punishing someone. Read the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. God has struck many people down and killed them. The government has an obligation to put an end to those whose crimes are so heinous that the only way to bring justice to them is by ending their life. | PRO | 2cae643b-2019-04-18T20:02:37Z-00004-000 |
The Purpose of School is Not to Learn. Math, reading, writing, and history. I never forgot any of that information. School is to learn, you should look up the definition of the word "education" it may help you a lot. Now schools TEACH you the skills to prepare you for college. How they prepare you is by teaching you. Test are a ranking system, who is the best who is the worst. You don't invest in a business that'll fail right? Ever notice how some schools have higher scores than others? It's because they TEACH better because school is about learning. If people forget most of their education how do people do their jobs? Like programmers, doctors, teachers, welders, and directors? I mean if they forgot, how do they know what they're doing then? I think you're looking at this all wrong you should reconsider this outrageous opinion. On this issue with Foreign Language they have to be motivated to learn another language. You don't just remember a Mexican class you took back in 6th grade. I can say most American 6th graders don't want to learn Mexican. That's why they don't remember any of it. I call it Mexican because it's a slang watered down version of Spanish. | CON | 56db78fb-2019-04-18T14:13:19Z-00004-000 |
in a god exists debate, BOP is on pro. No. I am not misinterpreting anything, I am a Christian, I believe in God, and that is what I am arguing. I am just arguing it in a different way from the most Christians you might debate this with. And the way in which i believe in God means that the only evidence I need is, well, the personal religious opinion of me and many others. This is just a different way that I believe in God, and it is not wrong. This actually is a whether God exists or not debate. It is a fact to me and the others that believe this, and our interpretation is its own proof. | CON | c4610496-2019-04-18T14:47:34Z-00002-000 |
The power of the visual. Art differs from other forms of media with regard to the expression of ideas. Unlike other methods of conveying ideas, art has a visceral impact that is instant and has a lasting effect. In a discussion, for example, there are often clues that ideas that might make people feel uncomfortable are about to arise. Thus, people are in a better position to consent to the sorts of challenges controversy within a conversation may pose (similarly, we tend to look more positively on taboo subjects raised within a conversational context than we do when they are, for example, shouted about in the street). In the case of art, particularly that which is displayed in public spaces (like squares, parks and museums) people are unable to consent in this way, but rather, may be confronted suddenly by something that they find disgusting, because it has forced them to confront something they find horrific or traumatic, in a manner which has a great impact, and that, because of the power of the visual, they find difficult to forget. | PRO | 9ef49415-2019-04-15T20:22:35Z-00011-000 |
Sport teaches us big lessons for life. Most sports involve teamwork and teach us how to get along w... Sport teaches us big lessons for life. Most sports involve teamwork and teach us how to get along with others, how to work together to achieve a common goal, and about trust and responsibility. All sports teach us about dealing with success and failure. They also help people learn about coping with pressure and the need to stick with training in order to improve yourself. True, some sports do not suit some people, but there are so many possible choices that everyone can find a sport to enjoy. | PRO | 4a800986-2019-04-19T12:44:27Z-00003-000 |
the end justifies the means in this hypothetical. All you have done is show that there are times when whether the ends justifes the means, is not so clear. i showed what i believe is a clear example. i am a "proportionalist" instead of a deontologist, so i to take each case on its own... but personally i would say a healthy person with organs is worth even a hundred other people. you may argue there's a slippery slope created with my methods, and i wont deny it. but i will say that there probably does exist a truth, it's just not always easy to tell which it is. truth may be relative in some sense though in some sense it's not, but it's not arbitrary. in my scenaio, the pros and cons were obvioius, in your case not so much. that's all you've shown. you haent shown how proportionalism is wrong or how the ends don't justify the means in that situation i provided. | PRO | 63cdb477-2019-04-18T17:32:44Z-00002-000 |
Jews control America. While Jewish people are disproportionally more likely to control large facilities and companies, this does not mean they control America. Does the top 1% of the US population control America? No. They only contain 50% of the wealth and as they get richer, so does the bottom 99% due to increased technological development. This is because Capitalism is cool like that. | CON | 6b12f696-2019-04-18T11:31:29Z-00006-000 |
smart cities lead to inflation. Well, apparently my opponent agrees with me that he has the full burden of proof (since he didn't argue with me). This being the case, I have already won the debate. After all, he plagiarized the first round, fell into a logical fallacy in the second round, and didn't make an argument this round. Having said that, I am happy to act on his advice, and offer my negative case. Negative Case Smart cities actually lower inflation due to their aggressive use of cutting edge technology. This allows costs to be deferred by more productive use of time.[2] Sources: 2. http://www.bloomberg.com... | CON | 8f96e9b5-2019-04-18T13:24:13Z-00000-000 |
Gene Therapy. It was stated in your argument that it is unethical to risk harm on a person. Would it be better to just let the people live with their disease rather than try to cure it? Wouldn't it be better to risk harm with trying to cure a disease that would be more harmful to the person in the future? Other therapies could also risk harm on a person and they are not as effective as gene therapy. It would not be unethical to risk harm on a person if it is done to cure a disease that could possibly be hurting the person more. Another advantage of gene therapy is that it "wipes out genetic disease before they can begin and eliminate suffering for future generations," according to ndsu.edu. Not only would it prevent the person from suffering, but it would prevent their children from having it too. It could prevent diseases before people even know they have them, since gene therapy is also "a good technique for diseases not researched yet. All of us carry defected genes an may not know it", states ndsu.edu. This could prevent great suffering and pain for people and their future children. "With its potential to eliminate and prevent hereditary diseases such as cystic fibrosis and hemophilia and its use as a possible cure for heart disease, AIDS, and cancer, gene therapy is a potential medical miracle-worker", says kidshealth.org. With gene therapy curing diseases before it begins and preventing future generations from having it, most of the population's diseases could be eliminated over time. | PRO | f6793f65-2019-04-18T16:23:49Z-00005-000 |
Abortion. I accept my opponent's definitions. _____________________________ "My opponent will probably point out that brain activity is not present until much later, and humans as a race are defined by the brain. I completely agree, and propose the fetus is life with certain human potential. " To say that a fetus should not be aborted because it has the potential for life is utterly fallacious. By your logic we should outlaw masturbation as every time a guy finishes he is ending millions of potential lives. "Additionally United States Law by established legal precedent as well as by written statutes have established that fetuses indeed are human even though I have conceeded that they are not." If you have conceded that they are not alive then posting legal precedent that they are does not further your own argument and is unnecessary. "35 states classify the killing of a fetus as murder (http://www.lifenews.com......) Therefore 35 States recognize fetuses as human." This is more like an appeal to authority. You did not show why a fetus is a human. You only showed that certain states say it is. "With the advanced medical contraceptives of today such as Condoms, Birth Control, and the Day after pill, Women have a choice whether to have a child or not. And that choice has to be made 3 days within sexual activity. With the day after pill available at local walmarts for considerably less than an abortion would cost, there is little to no reason as to not be protected." Condoms can snap and contraceptives can fail and the morning after pill is not 100% effective and can cause side effects which may discourage a woman from using it. One could theoretically use all three of these measures and still end up pregnant. Although a longshot, this person has done everything in order to be protected and yet still became pregnant. What I am saying is that there will always be exceptions and it is unfair to force someone to have a child when they have taken all of the necessary precautions. | PRO | 47ca9aef-2019-04-18T18:52:34Z-00004-000 |
Same-sex marriage should be legal. Same-sex marriage goes against the traditional principles of what marriage is. In Western cultures, marriage is the union between a MAN and a WOMAN, ordained by God for a lifelong relationship. For this reason, marriage is also referred to as a "Holy Matrimony." Regardless of a person's belief, this is at the core of what marriage means. In the argument for same-sex marriage, this idea is completely ignored. Proponents' main concerns are the civil rights of homosexual couples. If this is the case, then the argument should not be if homosexuals should be allowed to "marry," but if the same civil rights should be given to homosexual couples. The simple answer is: yes, they should have all the same rights as any married couple but not the Christian title of husband and wife. Opponents hang on the words, "Marriage is not a right, it is a privilege." Proponents of gay marriage are deeply offended by this, and this seems to fuel their passion to fight for gay marriage. However, in this case, both arguments are erroneous. Marriage is neither a right nor a privilege. The historical definition of marriage is simply a promise to God and the husband or wife, that one will forever remain faithful and committed. From this simple idea, marriage has become a tradition. Non-believers also partake in this ceremony to profess their devotion to each other. So, when a woman in San Diego married her dog, Christians found this to be degrading. To believers, this was not a "true marriage", but defamation. Essentially, while gay rights should be established, it shouldn't be labeled as marriage. I will now move on to rebuttals Your first argument is a fallacy: Begging the question. I will refute it, however, they will be discarded as it's fallacious 1. You stated that "Our world does not wish to discriminate against race, religion or ethnicity", this is inaccurate. Since there is a character limit I will just post a link http://www.religioustolerance.org... http://www.religionfacts.com... I will rebuttal your 2nd argument in round 3 due to a character limit 3. Just because other countries or states allow for gay marriage simply does not mean that other countries or state should as well. Take this statement 'Other countries legalized gay marriage, we should too.' Now take this statement 'Other countries disband guns, we should too' These statements are equally true. In each case, there is no conflict between doing what others do and the following, but that does not call for gay marriage to be legalized. The fact that other countries have specific laws, ie that gay marriage is allowed in other countries doesn't call for it to be legalized in others. 4. There is no guarantee that allowing gay marriage will lead to children being successfully adopted in other countries. In other countries. Simply put, marriage is not necessary for children to be adopted, as single people could adopt. Your argument is, therefore, a false assumption. | CON | 92aeb788-2019-04-18T12:09:19Z-00002-000 |
Resolved: Teachers should address students as "Mister/Sir" and "Miss/Misses.". It would defiantly create an atmosphere we do not want. And in addition to the other points, there would be so much confusion as to who the sir or miss was. By saying sir, all boys would respond and if the teacher tried to point out which kid he wanted to select, it might take an amount of time much more the what would be acceptable. | CON | 9c1c0573-2019-04-18T19:54:31Z-00002-000 |
There are no valid arguments sufficient to justify same-sex marriage being illegal. Public opinion has no place in the interpretation of law. Siting polls as eveidence in a court of law renders the court of law a kangaroo court. Polls are "feeling" based. They are in no way legal arguments for interpreting already exsiting law and are irrelevant. Legal precedent is a valid and sufficiant reason to oppose same sex marrige. Baker v Nelson Apllication of Baker v Nelson in federal courts Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit (2006) Wilson v. Ake, U.S. District Court (2005) In re Kandu, U.S. Bankruptcy Court (2004) Perry v. Schwarzenegger, United States District Court for the Northern District of California (2010) Defense of Marriage Act Cases before the U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit (2012) United States District Court for the District of Hawaii (2012) Sevick v. Sandoval, United States District Court for the District of Nevada (2012) Morrison v. Sandler, Indiana Court of Appeals (2005) Application of Baker v Nelson in state courts Morrison v. Sandler, Indiana Court of Appeals (2005) Hernandez v. Robles, New York Court of Appeals (2004) In Re Marriage of J.B. and H.B., Texas 5th Circuit Court of Appeal (2010) Benson v. Alverson, Hennepin County, Minnesota, District Court (2011) These are all legal precidents and not opinion. If legal precedent is not valid then nothing is. | CON | 916a7c2f-2019-04-18T17:34:27Z-00006-000 |
x-x/=0. Ok, I'm going to set up a series of mathematical equations to prove that x-x does not equal 0 all the time. Some quick terminology: /= does not equal. 8 infinity. x variable. - minus. + plus. = equal to. x-x=0 a number minus itself equals zero x=8 x equals infinity 8-8=0 because a number minus itself is zero, 8-8 is 0 as well 8+5=8 because infinity cant get any bigger 8+3=8 because infinity cant get any bigger 8+5-8+3=8-8 because of the last two lines 8+5-8+3=8-8+5-3 either the commutative or the associative property of addition/subtraction last line=0+2 0 from 8-8, 2 from 5-3 therefore, 8-8=2 sometimes at least, infinity can equal 2. therefore x-x/=0 all the time Don't accept this debate and tell me "infinity is just a concept, you cant do anything with it" because thats a load of crap. Good luck to my opponent. | PRO | a9990976-2019-04-18T19:26:10Z-00004-000 |
Education standards will be improved across the region. improvement of education among member states. It has policies such as the introduction of the inter University council of education to ensure the quality of University education, and an ongoing process of harmonising education curricula in all member countries (1). However, Africa still remains the continent with poorest quality of education and has the lowest skilled/educated labour. A large number of children fail to access basic education (2). Enlarging and deepening the EAC will therefore enhance education standards on a large part of the African continent; such policies will lift weak academic institutions in DRC, South Sudan and Somalia which are typical of their poor education systems. (1) East African Community Education, ‘Harmonisation of education and training curricula in East Africa’ eac.int, http://www.eac.int/education/index.php?option=com_content&id=53&Itemid=106 (2) Kevin Watkins, ‘Narrowing Africa’s Education deficit’, brookings.com, January 2013, http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2013/01/foresight-africa-education-watkins | PRO | 6aa1492a-2019-04-15T20:24:39Z-00012-000 |
Gay Marriage Should be legal. I would like to know why someone is against same-sex or gay marriage. I happen to be bi and would like to see someone else's side of this matter. Please explain why in complete and full detail why you do not want to have gay marriage legalized. I trust that you have a good argument as to why, and just want to see the other side of this "issue" in the United States. Thank You! | PRO | 1ac1769f-2019-04-18T17:39:53Z-00002-000 |
2011 Tohoku Earthquake and Tsunami. After World War 2, the Japanese were forbidden to build up an army. All they have is a small SDF (Self Defense Force), that protects the people. In March 2011, a massive 9.0 earthquake struck off the coast of Sendai, Japan. It triggered a massive 40 foot Tsunami that inundated the Japanese Coast. The Earthquake also damaged the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant causing a massive evacuation. So far, 14,000 people are dead with another 13,000 injured. The quake is expected to cost Japan almost US$300 Billion, making it Japan's toughest crisis since World War 2. Now back to the SDF, the magnitude and scale of this disaster is unprecedented. It is obviously too large for just the SDF to handle on its own. With the United States in Japan, they will be able to offer as much assistance as humanly possible to help the people of Japan bounce back from this terrible disaster. If the US abandons Japan now, it will look like a terrible incident of a nation that doesn't care about the welfare of millions of people who are in distress. | PRO | c1a2176-2019-04-19T12:45:27Z-00008-000 |
Which is better: Halo or Call of Duty. Thank you for that. Call of Duty is much better because of its somewhat realistic qualities and mostly realistic weapons. The thing that made Halo mostly great is Master chief, but now that Bungie has removed master chief of the story, Halo has to struggle to maintain the quality of play. While Halo may have a slightly better campaign, COD smashes Halo when it comes to multi-player. COD is well-know for it's amazing multi-player, that seems to sky-rocket the industry of COD. COD multi-player has many more maps and types of gameplay that exceed Halo by far. | CON | 7ba9863e-2019-04-18T14:38:29Z-00001-000 |
deseptive flaw in debateing system. Pro says. .. "One entire section of my arguments was unfortunately dropped on this alone I think I should win. "Well Pro is entitled their opinion, I am also entitled to my opinion that I should win cause I have a squirell with coffee in my avatar. Never the less I think readers and voters will judge the debate in its entirety and can make judgement on what are the important points and what are not so important. Interpretation of the argumentI was happy to hear Pro at the start of the last round say. .. "I have not moved any goal posts I maintain that contender is at an overall advantage, bec. of the last word advantage. "So was Pro able to carry this burden through out this debate ? The instigators advantagesI presented 3 advantages that the instigator has that can negate the advantage of the last word advantage of the contender.1) The instigator gets to form the resolution2) The instigator gets to make the first argument3) The instigator can launch a pre-emptive strike against counter arguments/rebuttalPro didn't dis agree that these were advantages available to the Instigator, at best Pro tried to down play those advantages. If Pro can assert that the last word advantage trumps these advantages, then I can merely assert that these advantages trump the last word advantage. Pro statistical AnalysisPros statistical analysis: Other factors unaccounted forYou will recall I bought up the problem of how experienced debators as potential contenders are cherry picking the easier debates thus we would expect that the contenders overall on DDO to have a higher winning percentage. Pro didn't argue against this. So I asked, how did Pro account for this in their analysis ? Pros reply is merely so what. And that in a nutshell is the problem with Pros interpretation of the data. Pro hasn't been able to isolate the variable of last word advantage with the variable of contender winning percentage, as such causation has not be proven and their data is open to more than one interpretation and thus is equivocal. I can merely retort that the cause of the contenders higher winning percentage is due to the cherry picking of potential contenders and the same data that Pro uses will support my claim as well, cause the data is equivocal. As such its unjustified to make the claim based on this data that is has been proven that or that its beyond reasonable doubt that the cause of the contenders higher winning percentage is the last word factor. Pro has not been able to establish causation between the contenders winning percentage and the last word factor. As such I submit Pro has not be able to prove that the contender is at an overall advantage because of the last word factor, as Pro had sought to show. .. "I have not moved any goal posts I maintain that contender is at an overall advantage, bec. of the last word advantage. | CON | 3c79c590-2019-04-18T18:42:51Z-00000-000 |
These benefits should be extended to all, not just the privileged few who can currently learn Latin ... Even if Latin and Greek were worth studying, it would be counterproductive to make them compulsory. Pupils should be encouraged to choose subjects at which they are successful and which fit into their career ambitions; for most, other subjects will be more useful. Forcing pupils who lack interest to study a subject will only lead to bored pupils disrupting classes, to the disadvantage of those who want to learn. | CON | 858f822f-2019-04-19T12:44:00Z-00016-000 |
The government does not have the right to spy on its citizens. The government should not want to spy on its own citizens – that is the mark of a totalitarian regime. If some citizens disagree with the current government or current form of government, it is their fundamental democratic right to do so, and the government has no right to judge their different political preferences as ‘dangerous’. Experience shows that elected governments are not always able to control their domestic intelligence services, which may develop their own views of what constitutes subversive behaviour. In the 1970s MI5 kept files upon Labour Party MPs, including ministers in the UK Government. Elsewhere, fragile democracies such as Pakistan and Turkey have seen military coups launched against elected governments with the involvement of the domestic intelligence services which were supposed to be guarding them. In Turkey despite a coup against army leaders in 2008 the domestic intelligence agencies remain very strong and are supported by the national police.[1] Whenever there is a domestic intelligence service it is potentially very powerful due to the information it controls which could be used in support of other groups like the military to undermine or overthrow the government. It is better to keep intelligence focused outward. [1] Cagaptay, Soner, What's Really Behind Turkey's Coup Arrests? Foreign policy, 25/02/2010 http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/02/25/whats_really_behind_turkeys_coup_arrests | PRO | f29a382e-2019-04-15T20:24:29Z-00016-000 |
What Parliament currently does. Parliament may on paper be able to influence decisions made by the Commission, but a lot of what the Commission does is still heavily influenced by the Council, a body established for national governments to negotiate based on their own partial self-interest. Such negotiations can lead to major anomalies in the European Union such the Parliament having a seat in Strasbourg order to appease France. Moreover the parliament’s powers over the commission are limited, the opposition cites being able to reject the appointment of members of the commission but it can’t reject individuals only the college of commissioners as a whole.[1] By making the Parliament the primary body in the European Union, decisions can be made with the view of fully representing the needs of their constituents rather than having to constantly be careful of the partisan Council. This can result in better decision making on how the Commission and by extension, the European Union should move forward. [1] European Parliament, ‘Oversight over the Commission and Council’, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/parliament/public/staticDisplay.do?id=46&pageRank=9&language=EN | CON | 37c7653f-2019-04-15T20:24:13Z-00014-000 |
Biggest Military Mistakes. Invade Gallipoli World War 1 By 1915, World War 1 had ground to a halt. The trench lines stretched through Russia, Belgium, and France and no one was making progress. The German Navy had also successfully blocked all trade routes between Russia and Britain and France. So British Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill had a plan. The plan was for a third front to be opened up by attacking Germany's ally, the Ottoman Empire in the Middle East. Then they could reach Russia through the Middle East and bring them supplies. The Gallipoli Campaign took place from April 25, 1925 to January 9, 1916. On theory the idea was good and the plan called for British and French troops to march from Gallipoli to the Ottoman capital of Istanbul. However, the invasion failed. The Ottomans were able to prepare for a land assault and 220,000 troops from the British and French Empires were killed. The Ottomans suffered to with 251,000 of their troops dead. This campaign was a major failfure for the Allies. While they still won the war, they could not get to Russia and bring supplies nor could they capture Istanbul. It was a failed plan that led to the war in the Middle East to go on longer and contributed to the ultimate defeat of Russia.http://en.wikipedia.org...http://listverse.com... | PRO | ec2991b5-2019-04-18T18:13:28Z-00000-000 |
Border Fence. Ok. Here we go. POINT 1- Money In this economic time making an investment that doesn't pay back directly is risky. Building a fence will cost money (building a fence around my yard costs a few thousand, how much would a fence that goes on for miles cost to build? Millions, maybe Billions). We do not have this money right now. We have other problems. Also, the fence will need maintenance. The fence will not pay off economically, and therefore, it is not a good idea. POINT 2- Less Consumers This might sound crazy, but, immigrants are consumers too. They buy goods. As we all know, buying goods stabilizes the economy. If people don't buy goods, the GDP is shrinks, which leads to other consequences. POINT 3- What's a fence going to do? Since immigrants are desperate anyway, what are they going to do? Yes, they WILL climb over the fence. If you make it a shock fence, it will at least double the price. Immigrants have options, they can climb, ram through and damage it, etc. There will still be illegal immigrants in the US, sure there would just be a few less coming in, but there will always be the ones that are here that we cannot find. Anyway, an immigrant can always strike a deal with a drug lord and get smuggled over on a private jet. POINT 4- If we legalize certain drugs, there would be less of them, because drugs come from Mexico. If we legalize drugs, then there would be less drugs coming in if a fence was to be built. But the reason for legalizing drugs would be to tax them through the roof, and have even more serious punishment for illegal selling of drugs without paying the tax. That way, we will have more money to take care of the country. POINT 5- Relations If you were Mexico, how would you feel if a neighboring country built a fence on the border because your country is notorious for smuggling drugs and illegal immigrants, and your country cannot take care of this problem. You would feel offended, stereotyped, and generally unhappy. POINT 6- Alternatives There are alternatives to this expensive, insulting, consumer killing option. We can simply ask Mexico to help us with our problem, and maybe, we can send the money we send to other countries to Mexico instead so they can take care of the problem. We can station more patrol troops there instead of sending them to Iran or Iraq, which is much more costly. We can more strictly enforce illegal immigration with stronger consequences. There is so much more that could be done, we could even do all the alternatives at once, and it will be less expensive, less offensive, and more effective. Thank you for reading my argument. | CON | 928a8d47-2019-04-18T18:32:03Z-00004-000 |
god exists? guess and oh please do try try try again. I am a devoted theist and I have been sent here by God to prove you wrong. Your whole point revolves around the inconsistent triad which is if evil exists, God is not omnipotent and if he is, he is not benevolent. This makes it hard for people to understand faith but there is a way of bypassing what is considered a "flaw' of religion. My first point is that we need evil to exsperrience goodness and pleasure. In other words you have to know what darkness is before you can understand what light is. You also need to keep in mind that a lot of catholics and christians think it was us that made evil. If you know the story of Adam and Eve we clearly see how we are born to defy Gods laws, we chose to disobey him and eat the forbidden fruit. For most theists we see this as the beginning of evil and we (humans) started it. Don't forget that we also have free will Meaning we can do what ever we want. At one point or another in our life we are mean or horrible to one another. On to my main point now. It simply is that evil and suffering makes us better people. If something is taken away from us we usually want to have it back. This makes us grateful for what we have left. If you are a slave as you had mentioned overtime you realise that you would never want the same misfortune for others. Making you more compassionate for others. | CON | c60e57f9-2019-04-18T12:03:14Z-00004-000 |
Should the Government pay the expenses of Space Exploration. First of all you do not know what you are talking about. The Sun will will turn into a white dwarf and yet it will turn into a black hole or explode into a nebula. Black holes are 4Dimensional objects and they still remain very dangerous and strong. Sorry there was a typo, I was talking about all governments around the world so that scientist and astronomers are able to work together to figure out ways on using another planet as a planet for future generations. As I was looking through all of your sources they are no longer reliable and outdated due to the date provided and the websites you have used are made by amateurs not actual astronomers or scientists. If you look on NASA's website these researches go towards saving human life and other life forms. Second of all, this research goes toward saving the species of humans left in this world, the homosapian sapians. It is all very clear that the sun will die in 5.5 billion years. By that time the earth would be polluted and a wreck therefore finding other planets to live on is a reasonable point. Do you want our human kind to go extinct so that life does not exist? It is put out there that people recommend money being put in by the government for space exploration for it is important to society, many people say well why don't we use the money for the country we live in. What is the point when printing more money makes the money less in value. Other reasons for space exploration is that it is a way to explore how the world works and how it is essential to our life. Asteroids and meteors make become a problem overtime and will continue to become a natural threat to human kind. There are many more reasons to put out there but this is all for now. Sources: http://kids.discovery.com... http://www.nasa.gov... http://www.cliffsnotes.com... | PRO | 3a5fee6b-2019-04-18T16:56:50Z-00002-000 |
Gay Marriage. A recent study by abbie goldberg shows that gay parents might be the best parents because gay parents are able to bring out more talent than straight parent, and gay parents are more motivated and determined to be parents, not people who are only focused on work. Straight parent are also worse because the 2 genders have very different perspectives on life, meaning that the parents will be raising the kid to look at life in 2 completely different manners. The parents will end up butting heads, and this increases the chance of divorce, which perminately affects the child. | PRO | 633571aa-2019-04-18T13:14:08Z-00003-000 |
Palaeontology Is the most Controversial Scientific Field. You have conceded that it is not in fact Palaeontology that is the most controversial field, but rather a field to which Palaeontology contributes. To be more specific, you think the Theory of Evolution is the biggest controversy in science, though it could also be the Big Bang Theory. The Theory of Evolution is a biological theory, which makes biological predictions. It is not in any way part of the field of Palaeontology. Therefore, the topic of debate, "Palaeontology Is the most Controversial Scientific Field" is wrong by your standards and mine. Since I'm the only one who's supposed to be arguing that it's wrong, it would seem that I've already won. However, I'll add a little something before I go. Palaeontology doesn't even _contribute_ the most to controversy, which seems to be what you were debating last round. The majority of Evolution's evidence comes solely from biological sources. These would be genetics, phenotypes, observed instances of evolution, etc. All that Palaeontology's sources give us is fossils. While fossils are needed to predict how extinct animals evolved, they do not nearly represent the bulk of the evidence for Evolution as a theory. Therefore, Palaeontology doesn't even contribute the most to controversy, Biology or Astronomy does. Concede defeat or make something up. This is a premise on which you cannot win. | CON | 2b1289a6-2019-04-18T19:57:33Z-00002-000 |
Homeschooling. I will use round 2 to give my opening statement. I will begin my rebuttals in this round as well since there was no restriction set on that, so I assume this is acceptable.First, I will argue why homeschooling is detrimental in a broad sense, and why public schooling makes more sense in response to these problems. Second, I will rebut your points.1. Problems with homeschoolingTime/money: In a public setting, parents need only drop their students off at school or a bus station, or even not do anything and have students walk to school or the station if it is close enough. If a parent decides to homeschool their child, a huge time burden is placed upon the parent because the parent has to teach their child. If a private tutor is involved, then we are talking about a huge monetary investment to substitute for the previous time investment.Education: If it is the state's duty to make sure that its residents are all properly educated, then homeschooling poses a problem. Since parents, unlike schools, are not legally responsible for the education of their children, they could simply keep their children at home and teach them nonsense, or not teach them at all.Social: Homeschooled students are not as equipped in a social environment as students in public schools for obvious reasons. This could pose a problem, because it is my contention that the job industry requires more from the social side of people than the educational side. This means that being able to comfortably cooperate with others is more important in the professions than being perfectly educated.2. RebuttalI agree, it is true that public schools do not account for the vast differences in the learning styles of students. This particularly bugged me about my normal school experience, however, it does help in one very important way. It helps your brain conform to the norms of how education is taught and learned. This can have practical applications in two ways. First, it helps on standardized tests. Knowing how people are supposed to think can have tremendous effects on how you undestand and take a standardized test. Second, it helps your social ability. Again, this leads back to undestanding how others think. While having a standardized mind is not always preferrable, beign able to function in an environment were everyone else has a standardized mind might be more useful than you might think, especially in the workplace. This is something that public schooling does best. | CON | 71a255b8-2019-04-18T15:04:17Z-00003-000 |
The Biblical Flood account is historical. Okay, you have given quite an argument but fancy word play doesn't scare me in the slightest and I am glad you put some research into this topic :) but I might disappoint you because I never use "escape hatch(s)" (#CONSAYS2015). Here is my opening argument, ( I will not rebuttal yours quite yet, even though I itch with anticipation.) I will keep it simple... Scientific, Historical/Cultural evidence back up my belief(s). 1. Scientific- Polystyrene Fossils-other fossils "They are often in the form of fossil trees that were buried upright and which often cross multiple layers of strata such as sandstone, shale, limestone and even coal beds. 1,2,3,4 They range in size from small rootlets to trees over 80 feet long. Sometimes they are oblique (or at an angle to) the surrounding strata, but more often they are perpendicular with (or standing 'upright' in) it" (Scientific Evidence for a Worldwide Flood). Polystrate fossils are also missing their rootlets. The word "stigmaria" (roots) got its name: i.e. because of the scar marks left behind from the broken off (and now missing) rootlets, and these roots are all found in completely different places from their original spots of growth. This shows conclusive evidence that these trees were suddenly ripped out of the ground and transported somewere different from their original sprouting place. "Fossils don't form on lake bottoms today, nor are they found forming on the bottom of the sea. Instead, they normally only form when a plant or animal is buried soon after it dies. Therefore, the fossils themselves are evidence of a catastrophe such as a flood or volcanic eruption that took place in the past. Rapid Petrification of Wood" (ICR). 2) Historical/Cultural evidence You said in your expaination of the date and even title that you want to disprove the earth was given a great flood "historically" well I have to let you know even if I lose based on words I have already won and here is why... THE FLOOD IS HISTORICAL... whether you like it or not nearly every civilization has had a flood story!!! which doesn't always involve a 'Noah' but usally involves a man building a boat that saves mankind from extinction. http://www.talkorigins.org... http://www.earthage.org... I can't say that any of these 'flood' stories have actually occured but it is kind of a BIG COICEIDENCE if not and only makes the Biblical Flood Story more friendly... | PRO | a5acd67b-2019-04-18T14:43:55Z-00006-000 |
Maths is an important subject. Every single science subject relies on maths. The whole of physics consists of using maths to model the world. At a basic level, this means drawing diagrams of forces, and at an advanced level it means writing down the gauge group which describes electroweak interaction, but it’s all maths. Even subjects like psychology, which are not normally seen as mathematical, would be lost without advanced statistics to decide whether a result is significant or not. Maths is as important to science as reading is to subjects like history and politics. Making maths optional will mean some students don’t bother doing it. These children will find that science is closed to them. If we want to have a strong science sector – in both industry and research – as governments keep claiming we do[1] it is important to make sure we have people who are qualified. That means giving children the educational background required for them to pursue science should they wish to: maths. [1] Osborne, George, ‘Achieving strong and sustainable economic growth’, Gov.uk, 24 April 2013, https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/achieving-strong-and-sustainable-economic-growth Xinhua, ‘Premier Wen says science, technology key to China’s economic development’, Xinhuanet, 27 December 2009, http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-12/27/content_12711291.htm | PRO | 1ab9f75-2019-04-15T20:24:22Z-00013-000 |
Path to citizenship is about earning citizenship. Demetrios Papademetriou, PhD, Co-Founder and President of Migration Policy Institute (MPI): "we should ask unauthorized immigrants to earn their new legal status. Unauthorized immigrants could begin the regularization process by registering with immigration officials and then be given, say, three years in which to qualify. The criteria for regularization should be forward-looking, easily proven, and consistent with what we as a society consider important. Steady employment, paying taxes, speaking English capably and having a clean criminal record are a good start. And the process should a pay for itself by collecting a substantial but reasonable fee from the immigrants who are regularized."[8] The difficult conditions of this path to citizenship, which gives illegal aliens no advantages over legal aliens, provides no incentive for illegal immigration over legal immigration. | PRO | 4cf9e3c5-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00044-000 |
The psychological effect of NewYyear. We associate New Year with a fresh start, a clean slate. It is when we are most motivated to make major lifestyle changes. The light is also returning after the darkest days of the year, which is a good boost to morale and means it will become easier to make many positive changes to your lifestyle such as spending more time outdoors and waking up earlier. | PRO | 1fd704f8-2019-04-19T12:46:52Z-00003-000 |
Rap Battle of the Century. You've gotta check the chain of command,I'm on top, simple supply and demand,Economics 101, I'm a Marx man.My rhymes smoother than Golf Wang, Yonkers,This battle is mine, I know that I'll conquer Your grade school grammar, you must be watching Bonkers.Take your gateway drug, the high's not great,I've got my gateway thugs protecting this estate,My empire, but it's not a state of mind,Sorry Jay, but this reality is mine.I ain't dead, I come back like Machiavelli,Like Jesus, Like Lazarus, Like OsamaBin Laden, resurrected, and you can't end me,You're a fool, disapproval rating lower than Obama. Let me summarize before you vanish before my very eyes This battle is over, it's no surpriseThese are facts bro, I don't need to theorize. | CON | 12d7dff1-2019-04-18T15:58:15Z-00001-000 |
Discourse on First Contact: Aliens are Likely to be Hostile [Continued]. We are assuming that the ET's have life as we know it. I will concede about the nature of life, but that is the nature of life on Earth. We have no idea how any other beings live. Their incentive may be to just explore, see what's beyond their galaxy. I agree that they'd have to be decades ahead of us, but I also think, what if they look at us the way we look at lesser creatures. Typically, when you see a puppy, you think "awe that's adorable" it's smart to be a little apprehensive as they can bite, but they usually won't be able to cause much damage. We know that water is essential for Earth life, but it wouldn't necessarily be essential for an ET. If they see us as I think they will, they probably wouldn't want to get rid of us, they'd want to watch us live and grow and learn. Most of your arguments can be countered with, "that's how we know life to work, but they most likely wouldn't have the same type of life as us." Trying to make ourselves invisible would just delay the inevitable. It doesn't matter if the come in 20 or 20,000,000 years, they will still be 100 times more advanced technologically than we are. Why make ourselves look like a threat when we can show that we mean no harm? | CON | 11c9ed2f-2019-04-18T12:15:52Z-00001-000 |
Globalization: Friend or Foe, Con or Pro (though not in that order). "Who first beneath the mistletoeOn Christmas night is found,Must pay a forfeiture, we know,To them that stand around.Approach, ye angel choirs, and thenMake way for happier sons of men."John Bannister TabbI found that poem specifically for the occasion, since it seems I've now been both put in my place and annihilated, and I feel like celebrating, a little. It's such a pity that my opponent was unable to complete the debate. I do hate forfeiture, both the act and the poem! I bid you all, audience and opponent, a very fair and merry day indeed, as drift the snows of winter and rise the spirits of the season in good cheer! | PRO | 3f7428d1-2019-04-18T18:02:53Z-00001-000 |
The God Of The KJV Bible Is Purely Moral. Thus debate shall be a legendary battle. Known in DDO history. (mine at least) Let it commence! //////////// Preemptive Argument: God letting bad things happen. He gave man free will. He would violate free will if he didn't allow bad things to happen. And if no bad things happen then people would be forced to believe in him because of it. But we would become robots in this. | PRO | 160bcc9c-2019-04-18T13:18:18Z-00006-000 |
Scientist have the moral duty to point how stupid are pseudosciences. What the Witch doctor has done to manipulate your sister is disgusting. I, as an avid fan of science and the scientific way of thinking avidly agree with you on that. She should definitely be stopped. HOWEVER, LAWYERS and POLITICIANS are the ones with the moral duty of making things such as practise of voodoo medicine and witch doctor methodology of treatment illegal. It is NOT THE MORAL SUTY of a SCIENTIST to poke their nose into it, only to alert the people who decide what is allowed and what is not and then leave it from there.To me, a scientist's role is simply this; to find truth and only worry about the proven and 99.99% certain in this Earth and the rest of the universe. They should not concern themselves with other's work (unless they look to it for information or inspiration) especially not to say "YOU ARE STUPID STOP THIS!" in fact no scientist of any kind is stupid, there is nothing stupid about reaching a conclusion only HOW ONE reached it and to regulate this is the duty of the makers of the law in terms of medicinal practises and legal credential requirements to carry out medicinal treatment in first place.In my view instead of worrying your sister that her belief is wrong (trust me I know form experience this only makes them hate you) you should instead say "the witch doctor is probably very good at what she does, but I as your loving brother am also very good at what I do and know and that is clinical medicine and non-magical science. Please try my loving ways before hers, I'll even help you pay for it." I know form experience of dealing with VERY religious people in real-life debating that to disprove something one avidly puts faith in is near-impossible unless they are weakly believing in it in the first place. Instead, you should merely state that although their belief is definitely true you can only offer nurturing and advice from what you know and/or are good at. Try my methodology and you will realise that pointing out stupidity as opposed to encouraging cleverness is not the moral duty of the scientist.Thank you for this debate I can definitely empathise with your issue with the sister and how this inspired your outlook on this debate. I VERY RARELY appreciate my opponent's views publicly but definitely I would probably have your exact views if anyone I loved was falling for such a disgustingly unscientific trick. However, I have realised that pointing out flaws in others is less productive than merely pointing out a lack of flaws and trying to avoid any mistakes in yourself. | CON | e08631d7-2019-04-18T18:01:20Z-00000-000 |
the 'unlimited paradox' - the unlimited is proven to be a false idea. Pro has not fulfilled the BoP with the opening statement, and likely will bother to do so in the final round, therefor losing the debate. In fact, I engaged the argument by stating, that pro does not fulfill the BoP. Does pro even know what the BoP is? Pro has not provided any evidence that would require retaliation, thus not fulfilling BoP, thus losing the debate. An immovable object and an unstoppable force cannot exist at the same time, because it would require one of those to be a false statement, such as the immovable object into a movable object, or an unstoppable force into a stoppable force, which causes the paradox. Pro should lose points for good arguments and correct grammar. | CON | cef51ff1-2019-04-18T16:01:13Z-00002-000 |
God is a logical impossibility. Since this is only a presentation of the affirmative case, it will be an unusually brief argument. P1: All things that are logically possible are bound by logic P2: God is not bound by logic C: God is logically impossible Premise 1: This is tautologically self-evident. Premise 2: As defined in Round 1, God is the divine author of all things and creator of the universe. Therefore, logic must be his invention. And by virtue of his omnipotence, he is not bound by it. Given that the definition of God was permanently established in Round 1, the only possible point of contention my opponent has is to attack the notion that God is not bound by logic. However, if God is in fact bound by logic, then he is not all-powerful. If logic is not God’s creation, then he is not the divine author of everything. In short, in order for God to be God he must be capable of modifying or bypassing logic whenever he so pleases…. and insofar as he has those powers, he must be logically impossible. | PRO | 3d08d111-2019-04-18T18:11:42Z-00003-000 |
The Kalam Cosmological Argument is False. You held the burden of proof in showing that the Kalam Cosmological Argument is false. All you did was appeal to ignorance. That in no way disproves it. You claim that the universe does not require a cause. But you did not give proof for your claim. No proof or reason was given that the universe "did not become to exist". Your only defense was that it is possible. But no reason was given for this possibility. The Kalam Cosmological Argument stands unrefuted | CON | 20f85594-2019-04-18T14:32:14Z-00000-000 |
I believe the silent majority is closer to the libertarian party than to any other. The way I see it is that in a way you could be correct but no, i do not agree with that as the libertarian party seems more like a splinter of the independent party in this sense. Truth is when you say the party, you seem to be generalizing the American populace in these party's as well as the representatives. The american populace more or less focuses on the major planks, while then representatives the less major planks. I can agree as far as democrats, except that the libertarian party is far more into individual liberties to the point of anarchy. Democrats differ on the planks mainly economically. Other than that I can agree that they could take a vast majority of the democratic party if not for that. That is why we have the political philosophy of a libertarian democrat. Republicans however differ very much on basically every issue against democrats except on federalism, and the right to bear arms. Honestly here it comes down to republican vs. Conservative Democrats. . http://www.lp.org... | CON | 6bb2f401-2019-04-18T19:42:42Z-00003-000 |
Evolution Is Falsified. Thank you for the invitation to a debate GarretKadeDupre. Of course I will accept. Just to lay out some early contentions - the debate topic is 'Evolution Is Falsified', which means Pro has the BoP for this debate. It is for Pro to demonstrate that Evolution is indeed falsified - my role for this debate will be primarily to rebut any arguments and evidence presented by Pro. Good Luck! | CON | 3d1e5ee6-2019-04-18T16:40:16Z-00006-000 |
Rap Battle. Alright, I never got a response. Looks like this battle is over. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~He forfeits twice, morphed into morbid micegrab the dice and spray colder than alaskin icewrists frozen, looking like the polar expressI told him, we bowling, and I roll with the bestUnlike my opponent, I never quit when I battleyou can call me the sheep dog, herdin' his cattleaustralian shepherd - from the land of the convictsliontooth in this booth, his body was covered in paw printsIt's like bigfoot, his victory over me is non-existenthe took a pic but even with photoshop failed to fix italways coming out fuzzy with nothing that was solidif he himself was a problem, it looks like I solved itReady for the next, cuz this chump got beathe's stupider than a redneck who humps on sheepthem good ole' boys would make him squeel like a piggyhe ran away because he knew I keep it real like I'm Biggie #RIP | CON | e7371b15-2019-04-18T16:16:04Z-00000-000 |
Cross-species Genetics. Its the next logical step. And as i have previously mentioned the "Ethical high ground holds no water in science. We survived because we evolved. This is evolution on an accelerated scale one that we can and are breaking. To play to your ethics while furthering my point. "The power of The power of God lies not in nature but in man, not one man or a group of men, but in all men. Man has the power to create and destroy." Humans are meant to create new ways to survive. A hybrid with the abilities and genetic attributes of a gecko would be able to climb walls effortlessly and stand upside down on large construction projects. With such an ability mankind would be able to rapidly expand and build things that would take ten times as much effort if done by a normal human. A hybrid camel would be able to survive in the desert for long archaeological digs with almost not food or water. A hybrid with the ability to breathe underwater such as that of a seal or walrus would be able to do otherwise dangerous work with underground mining and cabling without the need of an oxygen tank and for longer periods of time. With such cross breeding in place the human species as whole will diversify as it was meant to be. For a more medical approach think of felines who have contracted the AIDS virus. In their genetic bodies lies the ability to turn the virus into a cancer. With that capability chances of removing the virus with Chemo therapy or other cancer treating agents go exponentially and with less damage than having to constantly ingest large amounts of highly destructive drugs daily. Not to mention the economical benefit. There lies within the human genome remnant genes that are similar to that of any species we put up to compare it with. by crossing these genes together the introduced genetics would trigger long dormant ones that would hold numerous health benefits. Game, set, match. | PRO | e298d422-2019-04-18T16:16:30Z-00001-000 |
The Death Penalty. I apologize for the time taken to respond. I just finished three days of SATs. ==== Some benefits would be that it could help curb crime because of people fearing this punishment. Another benefit is to stop the overcrowding of jails (http://justana-justana.blogspot.com......). The death penalty can also help prevent further travesties from occuring. ==== (NOTE: Please let me know of some unbeneficial effects as I asked before. Thanks!) No matter what happens, a human is a person created by the divine God, who made us individually for our own purpose. (See next rebuttal) Jesus hung out with, if you excuse my language, thieves, corrupt men, sleazy prostitutes, and etc. He loved each and every one of them, and I am sure He did not want them killed. ==== Yes, I believe that Jesus would support the death penalty in certain situations. I believe this because Jesus is essentially God and God asks his people to kill the other evil nations and law-breakers throughout the old testament. ==== Mark 10:19 KJV Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother. Luke 18:20 KJV Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother. James 2:11 KJV For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. The Old Testament -- a history of God's people, is not the Law we as Christians follow. We do not go by "an eye for an eye," but rather "turn the other cheek." We follow the peaceful teachings of Jesus, which tell you to not hurt another person. God tells his people, "Do not kill" even in the Old Testament. He did, however, make exceptions for the evil. Not though that those he killed were nations of evil, not juyst one person. >> We follow the new law of Jesus; we do not kill as Christians. We do not follow the Old Law of the covenant.<< ==== The Bible promotes killing of people who've had more serious offences like adultery, rape, and murder. If my opponent wants me to source specific spots in The Bible in the next round, please say so. ==== I'd like to see a source outside of the Old Testament. The Bible, in the Commandments, forbids killing. I'd very much like to see a verse that "promotes killing." Thanks! | CON | 9a30ac84-2019-04-18T19:26:12Z-00003-000 |
players found guilty of using PED's should have their records and accomplishments stripped. The argument is whether or not a person should have their wins taken away. Im not saying that every person that does use a PED wins. thats not necessarily the case, what im saying is, that if they win, they didnt deserve to win. Like when playing a board game as a kid, you always yelled at the cheater. whether they won or not they either got kicked out of the game and/or banned from playing it again. Sports are becoming corrupt because of performance enhancing drugs and cheaters should not be rewarded if they win, if they lose they still deserve some type of punishment. | PRO | 3a5d6f0-2019-04-18T18:05:01Z-00001-000 |
LD Debates Should Be Based on Morals/Philosophy, NOT Statistics. I am sorry if i didnt specify case too well, but i was reffering to Lincoln Douglas cases. I am also sorry about your confusion. A core value is what a person seeks to achieve and a value criterion is how you wish to achieve your core value. I am also sorry for the confusion about LD debate, so i will try to be more understandable. I would also like to say that my opponents argument is valid so i won't argue about the format of her case. I guess I will give time for my opponent to change her argument as to apply to Lincoln Douglas cases. In the mean time, i will attempt to attack my opponents arguments. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Legal Case-The point of a legal case is to prove wether an action should be deemed correct or incorrect. So its priority should be to derive its case off of morals,logic,ethics, and philosophy. Broad Term-This applies to any case in general, like policy. Since some cases are based off of statistics, i will attempt to cut it down to just LD. As my opponent stated, Morals and Ethics are extremely controversial. That is what allows LD Debates to be so open. So extending on that fact, the point of LD is to judge which case makes more logical sense, not to see which statistics provide better evidence. So affirm and await my opponent's refutation. | PRO | e7df8cd6-2019-04-18T19:01:36Z-00003-000 |
Resolved: Man-made Global Warming Exists. Rules Round 1 is for definitions by Con while Pro will make her opening arguments. Round 2 Con will make contentions and rebuttles, while Pro Refutes. Round 3 is rebuttles by Pro and Con makes rebuttles and Conclusion. Round 4 Com makes rebuttles and conclusion, Pro will states, "No round as argeed upon." If Pro says anything else in the finial round then it's a forfeit of all 7 points. No swearing No trolling man-made- manufactured, created, or constructed by human beings; specifically (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Global Warming- Global warming is the unusually rapid increase in Earth’s average surface temperature over the past century primarily due to the greenhouse gases released as people burn fossil fuels | CON | 3b1f9ed6-2019-04-18T15:42:24Z-00007-000 |
A monotheistic God doesn't exist. Time & Definition Argument I and 2) So you have agreed that God exists outside of time and that God didn't have time to create the universe. Therefore, you have agreed that God didn't create the Universe. Therefore, by definition, God doesn't exist. Time doesn't exist. Time is a phrase created by man. The sun and moon orbiting Earth isn't time. It is nothing but its nature. We define a god as a powerful ruler of something, whom is worshipped by people. We define ruler as one who rules something or someone. We define rule as to have control over something or someone. He HAS NO "TIME" TO DO SO. Therefore, by definition, he doesn't exist. Definitely. He could be eternal. He exists outside of time, thus making that possible. He just doesn't know much as we do. Plus, under a different definition. 3) You agree that time doesn't exist outside of space. So, saying that the time God took was fundamentally different from the time of this dimension is. .. odd. Do you believe in something else now? Definition argument 1) You agree again. I don't understand the up-coming sentence. What are the following arguments? True? Or False? 2) Nobody. You agreed that he had no "time". He doesn't have "time" to do so. 3) So, are you saying that the monotheistic God didn't create the universe? Yes, because you have agreed with that. I eagerly await Con's arguments. | PRO | 2d1156f7-2019-04-18T16:56:35Z-00006-000 |
Is Online Education More Effective Then Traditional Education. Thats why there are lots of different resources available online. When one source isn't reliable you can go to another of the over 1,000,000 available sources online. Also what about online schools where you can sit at home while still going to a 7 hour school day. Kids get up at 6:00 every week day and go to school, but with online education you get too sleep in for a while and you can take your time until your online lesson starts. Even if you go to school while using a laptop kids enjoy it more then a text book. Textbooks are VERY heavy and can hurt your back, but if you have a laptop you have more information for less weight. Also what about the horrible hand writing that some kids have. You wont need to write anymore when you have a laptop, Plus its faster to type then write. You wont have the risk of loosing any important papers because you can just save them in a file. :D | PRO | 9c26bc68-2019-04-18T16:13:50Z-00003-000 |
The cartoons constitute a religiously motivated hate crime. The cartoons effectively constituted a series of religious hate crimes, specifically designed to offend and target the Muslim community, whom the editors very well knew would be up in arms over the publication of the cartoons. This is the deliberate association of a venerated religious figure with terrorism. Not only is this in violation of Danish laws and European norms protecting minorities, but it is also simply malicious and immoral. There was already a widespread tendency to conflate Muslims with terrorists before the cartoons; this high-profile incident risked exposing peaceful Muslims to prejudice, discrimination, and even physical danger from increased xenophobia. The cartoons controversy was soon followed by the desecration of Muslim graves at a cemetery in Denmark, for instance.[i] Many US journalism companies had the better judgment to report on the issue without reprinting the cartoons.[ii] Similarly, the Danish newspaper could have run opinion pieces describing their qualms with and thoughts on Islamic censorship, without resorting to the vulgar methods they utilized. [i] ‘Danish PM talks to Muslim group’, BBC News, 13 February 2006, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4708312.stm [ii] Folkenflik, David, ‘U.S. Media Avoid Publishing Controversial Cartoons’, npr, 7 February 2006, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5193569 | PRO | a2e60d25-2019-04-15T20:22:35Z-00009-000 |
satan is good. True god did created man but god has also killed his fellow man in a way that me and my associates would say that he just wanted to bring them to be with him but why can he be here with us like Satan also is and will be? Also why would God want us to die in the the bible its estimated that Satan killed only ten people while god killed sum 4 million plus with that giant flood of his. | PRO | 584f8576-2019-04-18T16:38:27Z-00001-000 |
God does not exist. I think God does not exist because there is no evidence for his existence and so there is no reason to think he exists. All religion was invented to control people and is actualy not the intervention of any gods. People often do not realize that they reject other gods saying things like 'that's a ridiculous myth' well I say the same thing to anyone who belives in God. I invite someone who beliefs in God to debate me on this topic. Round 1: Arguments Round 2: Rbeuttals Round 3: Rebuttals Round 4: Rebuttals Round 5: Rebuttals Round 6: Rebuttals and closing rebuttal | PRO | 5777d5e1-2019-04-18T17:46:23Z-00003-000 |
The Paradox Of The Stone Is Invalid. A definition of God is needed in order to advance into the actual part of the debate. Since we are arguing whether or not the Paradox of the Stone actually exists, we ACTUALLY need to understand who and what is God exactly. This would be like reading a last chapter of a book without understanding the previous chapters... I've provided a definition of God because my opponent failed to answer my request. God : a spirit or being that has great power, strength, knowledge, etc., and that can affect nature and the lives of people : one of various spirits or beings worshipped in some religions. 1. God's Power is forever growing Since my opponent has stated in his introduction "...God is assumed to exist for the purposes of this debate." We don't have to waste time. In my opponent's first contention he states "creating a stone so heavy..." First, we have to understand that God has the ability to create a stone with a set weight but cannot "create a stone so heavy.." Because the stone wouldn't have a SET WEIGHT. God is all powerful, but it is entirely IMPOSSIBLE to determine his strength because it is not definite. God's power is forever growing. You cannot measure INFINITY. You cannot put the weight of the rock so heavy on a graph because you add +1 pound to it forever and it wouldn't stop. By saying god can't lift it, is like saying a person has all the knowledge in the world. But you could just teach that person a made up language and another piece of knowledge would be given unto him. God can lift the rock not because he is set at a strength, but because his strength is forever increasing. 2. God can defy logic Yes, god can defy logic. But my opponent keeps referring to a "rock so heavy." A rock so heavy doesn't exist, there isn't a set weight as I stated in my first contention. But, what he can do is make a rock forever increasing in weight. So can god lift the rock? Yes, God can lift the rock because his strength increasing as well. | CON | 59e7420a-2019-04-18T16:48:42Z-00000-000 |
progressive tax is fairer than a flat tax. You say paying for the poor is the most important part of these taxes. A flat tax would pay for the poor. The government can actually make more money from a flat rate at about 25% or so. Obviously that wouldn't be exact. The government would have data on what percent to use, but it would be around there. There would be no less care for the poor based on this decision. I actually gave strong evidence proving that a flat tax would create more taxable income. Also, why are you bringing up a point that the rich are taking resources. Our energy resource crisis (which I assume you are talking about seeing as you were not very specific) is actually invested in almost completely by the upper and middle classes. A flat tax actually encourages investment as I said before, thus solving this problem in the best way. Even if you were talking about monetary resources, please refer to my first paragraph and previous arguments. The government would have access to acquire MORE taxable income with a flat tax than they would with a progressive tax. | CON | 3704822a-2019-04-18T14:11:02Z-00000-000 |
Food Irradiation. Food irradiation is inefficient and hazardous to the work force of the factory. In 1997, a poll which surveyed the use of irradiated food showed that 77% had opposed the use of irradiated products. This is why irradiated food is banned in America (www.rense.com) Residents oppose having these potentially dangerous facilities, many of which use radiation, in their neighborhood cities, as well provides poor security threatening these cities, and contamination risks such as leaks into the sewer system (www.foodandwaterwatch.org) Lastly, irradiation is not the only option for providing clean and sustainable food. It has much more hazards then benefits as it kills many people, and slows down the processing lines of irradiated food. (www.rense.com) | CON | a56dda15-2019-04-18T16:24:49Z-00008-000 |
Gay marriage. Please explain how the rest of my argument is bull crap ( P.S. check your spelling. it's not a bull fish) when I have provided quotes from the Bible. So with the Bible being oral history for so long how do we know that any of it is even true? The answer... We don't so you can't really use it as a valid source for factual evidence. I would still like a response on whether or not you follow the bible to the core or not. I feel as though you posed no actual challenge and was dissipated hoping this would have been more enjoyable. You used almost no evidence to attempt to prove anything I said wrong or to rebuttal. All you have done is be a total jackass to me. | PRO | 339636c5-2019-04-18T14:14:23Z-00001-000 |
Drinking Age adjustment from 21 to 18. Alcohol is mentally and physically harmful [1] [2]. Obviously, alcohol has negative effects on a human"s mind and body. From [1]- Brain- Alcohol interferes with the brain"s communication pathways, makes it harder to think clearly and messes up balance and coordination. Heart- Cardiomyopathy (stretching and drooping of heart muscles), High blood pressure, Stroke. Liver- Alcoholic hepatitis, Fibrosis. Cancers- Mouth, Throat, Liver, Breast. From [2]- Liver disease, Alcohol poisoning, Slurred speech, Ulcers, Malnutrition. If this list is not enough proof of the negative effects of alcohol, I am sure there are other impacts I have not mentioned. An 18 year old mind is less mature than a 21 year old mind [3]. [3] suggests that the human mind develops from 18 to 21 but that the brain is still not fully matured with decision-making until about the age of 25. To allow 18 year olds the right to drink knowing their minds are not as mature as the minds of 21 year olds would be illogical and dangerous. Alcohol can be connected to various crimes [4]. Though initially the link shows the differences between 18 and 21, if you read further down, you read that alcohol annually contributes to somes 1,700 deaths, 599,000 injuries, and 97,000 cases of sexual assault among college students. So to decrease the legal drinking age to an age group where minds are not as developed would seem illogical and dangerous. Sorry the opening statement was short, but it was to the point. Sources: [1] http://www.niaaa.nih.gov... [2] http://www.drugfreeworld.org... [3] http://www.npr.org... [4] http://www.bu.edu... | CON | d168efcf-2019-04-18T16:27:11Z-00003-000 |
Migrants can benefit developing countries. Migrants also benefit developed countries albeit in a slightly different way. Migrants, often even those who are highly educated, provide a cheap workforce doing the jobs that native workers don't want to do. This is particularly the case in agriculture in developed countries where anything that is labour intensive relies upon cheap migrant, often illegal, labour. In the US somewhere between a quarter and a half of the farm workers are illegal immigrants.[1] This results in goods and services being cheaper in the developed country than they otherwise would be benefiting the whole country. [1] Baragona, Steve, ‘US Farmers Depend on Illegal Immigrants’, Voice of America, 11 August 2010, http://www.voanews.com/content/us-farmers-depend-on-illegal-immigrants-100541644/162082.html | CON | b547e1b3-2019-04-15T20:24:43Z-00010-000 |
Liberalism and the Democrat Teachers Unions are destroying public education in America. Hello Cricket Your points are well taken, and good teachers can be of any persuasion My main point is more general- the UNIONS and the BUREACRACY are the main problem, and they keep dumbing down standards And the AFT, NEA and the rest are like 100% democrats. Their constant attempts at social engineering (for example here in Ca they just passed a bill that will allow boys in girls bathrooms if they "feel" like a girl If you look at the testing, the rigourousness continues to decline, and the test scores go down ,and then they dumb down the tests. Look at the graduation test now for HS - it is like a 6th grade test when I was in school! A total and complete JOKE! and still like 50% of kids cant pass! It is a total complete disaster and continues to get worse There is no discipline either, becuase liberalism is running amuk things are probably much better there in PA that here in CA, but I think that by ANY measureable standards - SATs GREs AP tests and the like, the level of knowledge of kids is declining and rapidly There needs to be a revolution and much tougher standards And PARENTS need to be more involved as well. And one final point, liberals in general propagandize against this great nation and distort history , leaving kids with the impression that we are the bad guys and socialism communism and the like have redeeming value cheers | PRO | 3763e11f-2019-04-18T20:03:16Z-00001-000 |
EMF is not a short-term solution to immediate crisis. Matthew Saltmarsh. "Proposal for European Monetary Fund Meets Resistance." New York Times. March 2010: "'It does not appear to me to be the absolute priority in the short term,' Ms. Lagarde said on the sidelines of a banking event here. 'If it is simply meant to strengthen the European mechanisms already in place to govern finances, then it is not helpful, in my opinion, to stir up the polemic.' That sentiment was echoed by Axel A. Weber, the chief of the Bundesbank, or German central bank. 'It’s not helpful to talk about ways to institutionalize help when the question is how to implement the budget reforms,' he said, according to a Reuters report from Frankfurt." | PRO | 26b5cea-2019-04-17T11:47:26Z-00045-000 |
Resolved: Patriotism should be taught to children in school. I'll start by saying you are the man dvhoose. I love golf and the Chiefs are awesome. Ok defining patriotism. This is my definition, but if you find an actual dictionary one, please feel free to use it. Patriotism - Pride in your country. So I believe pride in ones country should be taught in schools. As it is patriotism is already taught. Every morning the pledge of allegiance is recited. History classes are taught with emphasis on America and a lot of shady events in the past are hidden. So in status quo patriotism is taught. Almost every country has had some sort of revolt to overthrow the government. The United States has yet to have that. Yes the Civil War was that, but it was more about the south seceding than taking over. Nonetheless that was before schools taught patriotism. Back then schools were still highly undeveloped. Patriotism avoids governmental revolts which means less death and more stability. Those are good things. Patriotism being taught is a good thing. That is all I'll say for this round. | PRO | 52300b8e-2019-04-18T19:27:13Z-00005-000 |
On the legislation of marriage. My opponent has made several very interesting arguments in his round 2 rebuttal. I too will avoid addressing my opponent’s arguments this round and, instead, will insert my final arguments. My opponent is in favor of de-legalizing marriage so that anyone can form personal unions without society’s blessing/mandate. Firstly, this denies anyone in American society the benefits of marriage. Secondly, this allows opportunity for open bigamy (if not polygamy). It may also lead to unwarranted marriages between elders and adults. Essentially society’s authorization of a marriage is to avoid harmful situations such as polygamy and incestuous relations. If we are too de-legalize marriage, the uncontrolled unions that would emerge from lack of proper mandating would unhinge society. Secondly, I would like to argue that without the legitimacy of a marriage license, how would society confirm a person’s supposed union to another person. If my opponent is asking for complete lack of government intervention, then there would be no way for a government to know if Jane Doe was in a union with John Doe. This can be dangerous in regards to medical and legal outcomes from the de-legalization of marriage. Overall, my opponent continues to thrust his reasoning for his arguments, but still fails at proving why this should be the case. Having the burden of proof, my opponent should not only express why the de-legalization would be a good idea, but why it would benefit society more than the current legalization of marriage. I look forward to my opponents rebuttals in the final round! | PRO | 6d581f74-2019-04-18T14:37:52Z-00001-000 |
Marching band is a sport. My opponent brought up some good points but all of which were not fully thought out. He stated that while the marchers know a predetermined movement he went on to state that they do have to adjust to the marchers around them. Just like a football play, the receiver must adjust to the circumstances brought when the play doesn't go through correctly. If a marcher sees that there is a larger gap than what there should be then he/she must adjust to it so that it won't appear to the audience. Another example would be this; If the band is brought to a left slide and the person in front of one of the marchers is not moving at the correct tempo, then everyone behind him/her will have to adjust. "Every play made in a competitive sport must change according to what is happening during the game". A football teams play relates to a marching bands drill chart. When the play doesn't go through, the player must adjust. "In many competitive sports, it is not necessary to remember stepping patterns, to play music, or to do anything while playing music". This is correct. While my opponent is at it, in many competitive sports it is not necessary to throw a basketball threw a hoop, but is in basketball. In many competitive sports it is not necessary to run a football into the end field, but it is in football. In marching band, to win you must use correct stepping patterns, remember your music, adjust to those around you, and all while playing the correct notes. You might as well call it competitive since there are marching competitions, most well know as "DCI" or "Drum Corps International". | PRO | d38a910d-2019-04-18T18:12:12Z-00004-000 |
The Schengen Area eases the free movement of goods and people that the EU strives for. The freedom of movement of goods and people is a fundamental aspect of the European Union[1], and the Schengen Agreement is a crucial part of making that a reality. This is not just useful in terms of cutting the cost of conducting business across Europe; it also makes it easier to have holidays too. The Schengen Agreement paved the way for the Schengen visa[2] to come into being, which is what actually makes the EU free movement policy a reality; visitors to the 25 countries above now only need one visa to visit all of them. The Schengen visa also gives non-members of the European Union the ability to travel unimpeded through all of the countries that take part in the program. Obtaining the Schengen visa is the same as any visa process: you apply, send in your passport and then receive a stamp in it if you are approved. This process not only saves money – as you do not have to pay and apply for a visa for every country - but it also allows for more freedom of movement even for those who enter the Schengen area under a visa regime. All members of the EU believe that “the free movement of people is one of the Union's key achievements and we have to maintain and safeguard this”[3]. This is only a single point in favour of the Schengen area, but the freedom of movement clause is the very essence of the EU. Without the Schengen Agreement the most basic tenet of the European Union would cease to be. This far outweighs many of the technical disadvantages. [1] ‘Free movement of persons, asylum and immigration’, Europa, http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/justice_freedom_security/free_mov... [2] ‘The Schengen Agreement: History and Information’, ACS, 2011, http://www.acs-ami.com/en/travel-articles/schengen-agreement.html [3] European Affairs, ‘EU haunted by fear of refuges, not reality’, The European Institute, June 2011, http://www.europeaninstitute.org/EA-June-2011/eu-haunted-by-fear-of-refu... | PRO | 2a79f5c3-2019-04-15T20:22:27Z-00021-000 |
The Electoral College Should be Abolished. In this debate, Pro will argue that the Electoral College should be abolished. Con will argue that it should not be abolished. Electoral College - The system or body of people representing the states of the United States, who formally cast votes for the election of the president and vice president every 4 years. Abolish - To repeal by the proper means of amendment through the U. S. Constitution. | PRO | 55c05f7c-2019-04-18T15:19:28Z-00007-000 |
Abortion should be illegal. Hello, thank you for accepting. Hopefully, this will be a fun debate, I am working on my debating skills. "Rebuttal 1: My opponent states that a person who wants an abortion shouldn't have gone out an gotten pregnant in the first place. By my opponent has yet to explain what's so wrong with getting an abortion because of an accidental pregnancy. There's no basis for her argument. The argument is also flawed. Some women are forced to have a baby due to being raped. Telling this woman she cannot get an abortion is wrong because she did not have any say in the matter to get pregnant. It would also force the raped person to live with a condition she was not prepared for. Termination of a fetus should be acceptable in this case." I forgot to add something in my first post. Rape should be an exception. Otherwise, abortion should be illegal. Because rape is already illegal, I forgot to add the exception. There are many cases these days in which women get pregnant without getting raped, and they still want abortion. This is unfair, it is the woman's fault and she is killing the baby. "There's no basis for her argument." For your information, I am a male person. With that said, I will wait for my opponent to argue and I will build off of my opponent's arguments. | PRO | 75863939-2019-04-18T18:29:52Z-00004-000 |
Resolved: The US government should give scholarship grants to girls who have big boobs. "If theyre going into college though then 99.9999% of the time they are under 25, which is the optimal age for boobs to be free to frolic with one another."That may be true, but it doesn't proclude fatties, which you have stated you want to avoid."When in the history of forever have men NOT wanted to watch a cat fight?"I am not referring to a cat fight, I am referring to the constant bickering and backstabbing that is annoying as hell to listen to."More strippers doesnt hurt anyone. "Apparently you've never gone to a strip club Monday during lunch, have you?Yes, low quality stripper hurt everyone, from the owners/employees of closed strip clubs, to the creeps that now roam the street without the ability to voyeur, to the girls with daddy issues now having to deal with real relationships, to the rowdy male youths looking for a good time, to the housewife who benefits from her husband wandering eyes. Keep in mind the porn industry will be hurt substantially, as well, though not crippled."So you agree that they should be given grants, got it. "I admit the better use of funds would be a work program, not scholarships, as the resolution states.And, yes, eye candy is work."Cellphones and facebook have been doing that in college classrooms long before big boobs ever became an issue."That is true, but it doesn't mean we have to aid its destruction.Also, college classrooms may actually be free from these distractions, both with professor and student not bringing/being allowed to bring phones to class. However, a big boobed woman fresh out of the shower and forgetting to where a bra is a distraction for all, especially the professor with a front viewpoint, regardless if you brought your phone to class or not. ---All in all, it is quite clear that scholarships for big boobed girls would cause more harm than good, in both the classroom and campus life. | CON | 4a505e0f-2019-04-18T16:42:05Z-00000-000 |
Churches Are Slaughtering America's Children for not believing in christmas, Churches Will Be Bombed. Every church in America should be bombed because according to the fact that 56,000,000 people die every year, 19% of children since 1998 have been senselessly slaughtered for not believing in Christmas. If it's about the lives and safety of America's children, Every church in America should be bombed. If 19% percent of children in America have been senselessly slaughtered, Every church in America should be bombed. If not believing in Christmas gets you slaughtered, Every church in America should be bombed and Christmas should be banned because Children should have a right to have his or her own beliefs and feelings than others. If you, a parent, pastor, priest, or a church-goer tells your child "You should be ashamed of yourself" you are a bad influence in their life, also you are against their will. If you don't allow your child to have his or her feelings or beliefs, you are against the child's will. The Transgender Lites song link: | PRO | 68240a5c-2019-04-18T12:13:04Z-00005-000 |
School Finals: Students who passed the class shouldn't have to worry about taking a final. "I'm just saying that if youre passing the class you shouldn't have to take one if you are not passing then you should take one." - proSo you're saying that students who are "passing" shouldn't take a test...okay, so I guess that means students who are barely passing deserve to not take a final as well.Passing doesn't specifically mean earning A's and B's by US standards. In the US, the general standard of a passing grade is that anything below a 60 or 75 is failing, depending on the grading scale [ http://en.m.wikipedia.org...]. Let's say there's a student in your class with straight D's. He doesn't have good grades but they're considered passing grades.If your school allowed passing students to be excused from finals, then ALL passing students would be permitted to not take finals. Does that seem fair? Do you think that D grade student deserves what you deserve - an A/B student? | CON | 866a48bd-2019-04-18T14:50:28Z-00002-000 |